English College in Rome: Scene of Latest Seminary/Homosexual Scandal?editor
From the Editor…
Some time ago, I was contacted by an English reader who was concerned about a seminarian from an Archdiocese in England who, on social media outlets, has shown support for the “gay culture”. I received evidence of this “support” for the “so-called gay culture” and – given that the Vatican prohibition on the acceptance into seminary and ordination of homosexuals includes not only those who are homosexually active or with deep-seated homosexual tendencies but also those who “support the so-called gay culture” – the material did ring an alarm bell.
However, I didn’t act on the information immediately, but waited a bit before contacting the Rector at the Venerable English College in Rome to ask for an email address for the seminarian in question. I decided that the first, and fair, thing to do was to give the seminarian the opportunity to reflect on the Church’s prohibition on ordaining homosexuals, and to inform him of the fact that, despite his involvement in the “gay culture” having been scrubbed from his internet history, the evidence is still held on file by concerned Catholics.
Promptly, the Rector, Monsignor Whitmore, replied to provide an email address and I contacted the young man on 26 July 2018 explaining that “…a reader in England sent me some Facebook screen shots of you, ‘liking’ ‘gay’ clubs and stating that you were on ‘Pride’ committees – stuff like that -which led me to believe that you – at least at that time – didn’t fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You appeared also, on Twitter, to support a pro-gay ‘marriage’ article in the Telegraph… Since you are on your way to ordination to the priesthood, it would be reassuring to know that the above is all in the past and that you now, fully and unequivocally, accept Church teaching on homosexuality.”
[Name] replied promptly, to assure me that he did “now fully and unequivocally accept the Church’s teaching on this matter…” [emphasis added]. I decided that I was obliged to take him at his word, and reassured him on this point.
Then the veritable tsunami of homosexual scandals broke, with shocking insights into the normalising of homo-sexual life in Catholic seminaries, published across the internet. Bishops, not merely tolerating homosexual couplings (bad enough as that would be) but actually approving such activity within seminaries.
After further consultation with our source in England, I wrote again to the seminarian, my email dated 20 October, 2018, as follows, but this time, received no reply:
Further to our brief email exchange in July, when I was pleased to accept your assurance that you now accept the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, I hope you appreciate that, in the light of the tsunami of homosexual scandals involving priests and bishops which followed our correspondence, given the Church’s prohibition on the ordination of homosexual men or even those with “deep seated tendencies” or who “support the so-called gay culture”, I am unable to remain silent in the face of the evidence of your participation of the “gay” scene, and even support for same-sex marriage.
We are discussing, on our blog, the sacking of a sound priest from both Maynooth seminary in Ireland and St Mary’s Oscott in Birmingham, simply because he sought to apply the prohibition required by the Church. You can follow that conversation here
As you will see, if you read Father Marsden’s Open Letter to the UK Bishops, and contributions from our bloggers, on that thread, I must, on reflection, offer you another opportunity to re-consider your position.
My intention is not to upset you. I hope you understand that, and that I do, in conscience, believe that I was wrong to so readily dismiss the Church’s ruling on refusing homosexual candidates for seminary, in your case. That I was wrong to do so, has been driven home to me by the flood of revelations now in the public domain, and the shocking role of many bishops, themselves homosexually compromised, in the cover-up of homosexual abuse of vulnerable young people – including seminarians.
I look forward to your reply, in the hope that you have, in fact, realised yourself, in the light of the ongoing scandals, that the Church is wise to refuse ordination to those who are actively homosexual, have deep seated tendencies towards homosexuality and/or who support the so-called gay culture, and that you will, consequently, re-consider your own vocation. [Signed…] Ends.
When it became clear that the seminarian was going to sit it out, I felt I had no alternative but to contact the seminary Rector, Monsignor Philip Whitmore, Archdiocese of Westminster, copying into that email, the Vice Rector, Fr John Flynn, Diocese of Salford, Pastoral Director, Fr John Metcalfe, Diocese of Hallam, Academic Tutor, Fr James McAuley, Diocese of Portsmouth and Spiritual Director, Fr Anthony Doe, Archdiocese of Westminster. Thus, nobody at the seminary can claim ignorance of the fact that a seminarian with a public homosexual profile is to be ordained for an English archdiocese. My email – dated 24 October, 2018 – to the Rector, copies to the above-named senior staff, follows:
Dear Monsignor Whitmore,
Some months ago, I wrote to you to request an email address for [Name]. I repeat my gratitude for your speedy response to my request, and I apologise for the length of this email, which, I hope you will come to see, is lengthy only out of necessity. The following is the pertinent extract from my first email to [Name] which explains why I had decided to write to him:
“…a reader in England sent me some Facebook screen shots of you, ‘liking’ ‘gay’ clubs and stating that you were on ‘Pride’ committees – stuff like that -which led me to believe that you – at least at that time – didn’t fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You appeared also, on Twitter, to support a pro-gay ‘marriage’ article in the Telegraph… Since you are on your way to ordination to the priesthood, it would be reassuring to know that the above is all in the past and that you now, fully and unequivocally, accept Church teaching on homosexuality.”
[Name] replied promptly, to assure me that he did “now fully and unequivocally accept the Church’s teaching on this matter…”
Despite the Church’s prohibition on accepting homosexuals into seminary and ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood, I felt I could, in conscience, let the matter rest there.
However, in the light of the subsequent tsunami of scandals involving homosexual seminarians, priests and bishops, not least the persecution of priests such as Father David Marsden SCJ during his work as a seminary formator in not one, but two seminaries (Maynooth and Oscott), I now feel that I am conscience bound to inform you of my concerns about the prospect of [Name] going forward to ordination. Indeed, although I’m sure that you will be aware of the case of Father David Marsden SCJ, you can read about his situation and the attendant growing concern among the laity regarding the failure to apply the Church’s prohibition on accepting homosexuals into seminary, and, subsequently, ordaining them, on our blog here
My own conscience is now troubling me, not least because I am reminded of the detail of the Church’s concerns about homosexuality within the priesthood: “In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.” [emphasis added – Source]
Further, to bring the issue right up to date, I have, only this morning, received the following news from a friend in England:
“At today’s press briefing, Veteran Vaticanist Sandro Magister also asked a question on the Church’s acceptance of homosexuals. Magister asked Cardinal Tagle:
“You have said that the synod has been insistent on the welcome and accompaniment and integration of homosexual young people. So I ask you: In the seminaries throughout the world, we know that the welcome of homosexual young men as candidates to the priesthood is very strong and also very generous, with the effect that Pope Francis has spoken about it in alarming words.”
Last May, Pope Francis spoke behind closed doors to Italian bishops gathered for their plenary assembly, telling them: “The seminaries are welcoming too many homosexuals” and “we need to put the brakes on it.” Ends.
I wrote again to [Name] on Saturday, but, to date, I have not received any reply.
[Ed: at this point I reproduced here, my latest email to the seminarian, dated 20th October – see above].
If, Monsignor, you have any doubts about my concerns, I will readily email you the screen shots from [Name’s] Facebook which show that he – at the very least – “supports the so-called gay culture.”
Be assured, I take no pleasure in writing any of this but I feel duty bound to place the matter in your hands, leaving it with your conscience and the consciences of the staff copied into this email. [Signed, Editor, Catholic Truth] Ends.
Receiving no reply from the Rector, or any of the priests at the Venerable English College in Rome copied into my email, and since publicity is genuinely our last resort, I wrote one last time to the seminarian as follows:
When you failed to respond to my email dated 20 October, I decided that I ought to contact the Rector and other senior staff at your seminary. It occurs to me that I should have copied you into that email, so, with apologies for that oversight, better late than never, please find below, my email to them.
As a friend has just said, when even Pope Francis expresses the view that something has to be done about the rampant homosexuality in seminaries, it’s clear that there is a problem! Quite!
Thus, I repeat my exhortation to you to reconsider your position; perhaps you would reply to this email by Thursday, November 1, Feast of All Saints, latest, to let me know if you agree.
Since I have not had any reply from your Rector (not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement), then, absent the above requested assurance from you, I will be duty bound to place the information in my possession, into the public domain. That does not mean that I will name you – I won’t do that, but with the available data, it should not be too difficult for informed English Catholics to work out your identity. Obviously, that is not desirable, so I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position, if not as a result of my email(s) then as a result of reminding yourself of the Church’s prohibition on the ordination of those with homosexual tendencies, or even who “support the so-called gay culture”…
[My above email to Mgr. Whitmore et al appended here, in original email – Ed.]
Kind regards – God bless you.
So, what do we learn from the above correspondence? Do we learn that Oscott is not the only English seminary with a serious homosexual problem? Is the English College in Rome also implicated? Well, we certainly learn this: that there is a seminarian in the English College in Rome who is going forward to ordination despite his documented support for the so-called “gay culture” – and we learn that each of his superiors, knowing this, apparently refuses to apply the Church’s prohibition on his ordination.
The Church has good reason for refusing ordination to homosexuals. It’s not about “bigotry” or “discrimination” in the pejorative sense. Below, the pertinent section from the Vatican document Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders…
“From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter,
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate. Source [Ed: emphases added].
Clearly, there is no excuse whatsoever for seminary Rectors to continue to accept and ordain young men with homosexual tendencies or who are supportive of the culture that nourishes this tendency – which is, in fact, a vice.
We have asked the seminarian in question to re-consider his position – that is, to withdraw from seminary and refuse ordination in an act of humble submission to the teaching and discipline of the Church. Failing this, his superiors should refuse him ordination.
Given the flood of recent scandals, and the ongoing scandals at the Irish and English seminaries, Maynooth and Oscott respectively, the senior seminary staff – together with their bishops/archbishops – bear a very heavy responsibility before God for their defiance in refusing to apply the crucial criteria for the discernment of priestly vocations. The crisis in the Church today is essentially a crisis in the priesthood and that crisis is hallmarked by the widespread infestation of homosexual activity and mentality, into the once glorious Catholic priesthood: “This Congregation reaffirms the need for Bishops, major superiors and all relevant authorities to carry out an attentive discernment concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from the time of admission to the seminary until ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a conception of the ministerial priesthood that is in accordance with the teaching of the Church. Let Bishops, episcopal conferences and major superiors look to see that the constant norms of this Instruction be faithfully observed for the good of the candidates themselves, and to guarantee that the Church always has suitable priests who are true shepherds according to the Heart of Christ.”
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.
Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries.
Presumably, our approaches to both the seminarian and senior seminary staff will continue to be ignored. Hopefully, bloggers and readers will feel rightly outraged at this blatant disregard for the Church’s prohibition on accepting into seminary and ordaining homosexuals, including men who – like the seminarian referred to above – support the “gay” culture. Given the flood of scandals which are continuing to shock the world, then, hopefully you, too, will contact the senior seminary staff at the Venerable English College in Rome – click here for email addresses. Let them know that you have read about this scandal on this blog and they’ll perhaps realise that rudely ignoring the genuine concerns of the Catholic people, isn’t going to work.
Is there anything else, then, that we can do, beyond the above calling to account of those with responsibility to deal with this situation, and the obvious prayer and penance? Let’s hear it! But first, an important note…
Please do not speculate, in the comments, as to the identity of the seminarian reported in this article. or name any seminarians at the English College in Rome. If you have information pertinent to this situation, please contact the Rector directly, and if you think Catholic Truth can help in any way, email email@example.com Indeed, it would be useful for us to be able to include in any future reports the fact that the identity of this seminarian has been reported to the Rector by others, independently of our approaches. However, here, on the blog, no names, no pack drill… Anyone flouting this instruction will be blocked from participating in the discussion.
Just a couple of thoughts on this. As the Congregation for Education issued the 2005 document banning the ordination of those with same-sex attraction or who support the ‘gay subculture’, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is ‘in accord with’ this document, has anyone notified these Congregations of this scenario? After all, it is an Instruction from the Congregation of Education which is apparently being flouted.
It also begs the question – when these men first present themselves for the priesthood, isn’t this question about sexuality addressed straight away? It would be interesting to know if prospective seminarians are actually asked outright if they “practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture” ” If not, why not? In the secular world, many jobs have certain restrictions placed on them, and certain things have to be declared / acknowledged before an offer of employment is made.
Even if prospective seminarians answered dishonestly, in this instance, if information about this man’s support / promotion of the ‘LGBT’ lifestyle was put by himself into the public domain on Facebook and Twitter (and possibly other places), I can’t understand how it got to this stage. Don’t these panels interviewing prospective candidates Google them for background information? A lot of employers do these days. I think the problem is with the initial interviewing panels. They clearly aren’t being stringent enough.
Catholic Man of the Year,
LOL! Very humble username!
On the topic, I agree with you 100% – the Vatican apparatus is obviously not fit for purpose if they are churning out documents and instructions and not making sure they are being applied. Also, checking out social media is a first class idea, except that if the seminary rectors and other staff are homosexual themselves, that won’t make any difference.
I’m not sure that writing to the Congregations will make any difference at all either. I think they know perfectly well that these homosexuals are being accepted into seminaries and ordained. They must also know that the seminary rectors and other staff are also homosexual. Father Marsden is to be credited with exposing the rot in seminaries with regard to homosexual staff and students, even preying on students who don’t want their attentions.
I think all that we can do now is to speak up, make sure our disgust is well known and pray for the conversion of the inmates of these seminaries. .
Yes, my humility is legendary!
This whole situation reminds me of an incident regarding a friend of mine. The organisation that my friend works entered into a contract with a man, regarding the service they offer (I can’t elaborate any more). It would appear that insufficient background checks were made. In a short time, this man caused havoc within the organisation, and it eventually cost them tens of thousands of pounds in solicitors fees, court cases etc, to get rid of him, which they did. After it was all over and he was telling me about it, I asked my friend to Google the man’s name. He did, and was shocked at what he found – this man had a very unusual name, i.e. it wasn’t John Smith, so he was easily identifiable. There were a trail of reports on the internet – some in local newspaper reports – showing evidence of similar previous behaviour. My friend said that if he had seen that before, he wouldn’t have touched him with a bargepole. So perhaps we ought to be asking about those who interview and put through these seminarians in the first place.
Catholic man of the Year
I actually thought it was routine practice for employers to do a background check on social media. I agree the seminaries need to do that but the problem is it looks like the priests making the selection are homosexuals themselves and probably looking for young homosexuals to recruit. It’s a terrible scandal,
I am open to correction here, but I understand that these initial panels are comprised of priests and laity. I recall hearing from someone many years ago who was interviewed by such a panel as a potential seminarian (I lost contact with him and can’t recall if he continued to the priesthood or not) that he was asked about his attitude towards women priests, as it was likely that the Catholic Church would have them in the future. Sounded to me like they were trying to weed out anyone remotely orthodox.
There is an email address for the Congregation for Catholic Education online, if anyone is interested: firstname.lastname@example.org
Catholic Man of the Year,
Thank you for that email address – I have now emailed the link to this thread, to the Congregation for Catholic Education. I hope others will do so as well – the more the merrier, or, put another way, the more, the less likely they are to write me off as a nut… I think… 😀
To be Honest now Ed ( and thats maybe what they want us to be as most on here probably are ) sick and tired of the whole Rotten to The Core LGBTQIXYZ mob. Their Pride Marches. That you cannot switch on TV ( which I haven’t for 6 months) without at the time even adverts promoting this Deviant Lifestyle. Our Seminarys which if one now reads are more like a Singles Club but with live in Benefits. No wonder Jesus Wept.
Faith of our Fathers,
That is the exactly correct description of these seminaries – they are nothing more than Singles Clubs now. They need to be closed down, along with the so-called Catholic schools, and we start again from scratch.
Well that article took my breath away.
Catholic Truth has gone to a lot of trouble to save this seminary some very bad publicity and they have the cheek to ignore the emails? Some nerve.
Most of us would NOT have withheld the seminarian’s name – he needs to be fully exposed, IMHO.
It seems clear to me that the seminary staff are also likely to be homosexual. Why else would they see nothing wrong with this seminarian’s behaviour?
It’s Maynooth and Oscott Mark 2 IMHO. If only there was a “Father Marsden” to out the lot of them!
I agree with you about withholding the seminarian’s name. I’d like him to be outed. That’s what has been wrong in the past, covering up these scandals.
There’s obvious arrogance in him and his superiors when they would fail to answer concerned messages like the emails sent by the editor. It really is sheer nerve.
If the evidence is there, why not name this guy?
Add my vote for exposing this person. He has no right to be in a Catholic seminary and so should be named. I don’t live in an English archdiocese but if I did, I’d want to know if the newly ordained priest was gay or not. I definitely would. Then I’d switch to another parish.
I’ve just popped in briefly to post the following quote from Pope St Leo IX, writing to St Peter Damian (one of Leo’s cardinals) who fought the homosexual infestation within the Church in the 11th century – he is now a Doctor of the Church…
“Stirred up by holy rage, you wrote of such [i.e., sodomitical] clerics according to your judgment; it is appropriate … that we intervene with our apostolic authority so that we might dispel scrupulous uncertainty from the reader, and so that it may be known with certitude by all that everything that this little book contains has been pleasing to our judgment, being as opposed to diabolical fire as is water. … For he who does not attack a vice, but rather coddles it, is justly judged guilty of the death together with those who die by that vice.”
Pope St. Leo IX (r. 1049-1054), writing to St. Peter Damian
That final sentence, should strike fear into the heart of every seminary rector, vice-rector, spiritual director, academic tutor, formator you name it… they need to know that those (like themselves) who could do something about this vice yet do nothing, must be prepared, as Pope St Leo said, to be judged as guilty as those who engage in it.
I agree – that quote should definitely strike fear but the problem is the lack of fear – they know nothing will happen under this pope and they don’t actually believe in God, IMHO! They don’t believe in the God of the Catholic creed, that seems clear.
If Catholics stopped putting money into the collection plates that would hit them hard. They are making mugs of the Catholic people, the way they are living a lie.
Laura, you are absolutely right. They have no fear of “He who has the power to cast them into hell.” In Nuchurch not many people believe in hell or the possibility of going there and the last few popes have as much fault in this as the present one.
I was riveted by that report on the English college. So if this is the type of priests we are getting in England, what hope is there?
If all the senior seminary priests are OK with homosexual students, and probably homo themselves, what chance to the rest of us have, trying to teach our children and grandchildren that it’s NOT ok to have a gay partner.
I’m truly shocked that those emails went unanswered. They deserve all they get. I know editor believes in keeping this sort of dirt within the Church but, frankly, I hope a tabloid picks up this story. That would serve them right.
There’s a similar situation in the Diocese of Motherwell. A student priest who was removed several years ago over allegations of being sympathetic to the homosexual cause has recently been readmitted – to Oscott Seminary, of all places. Rumours have followed this young man in the time since he left seminary, with allegations that he has had a “very close” relationship with a priest.
The bishop of Motherwell has been informed of this, as has the nuncio but nothing has been done.
That’s a disgrace. I’m actually beginning to think we should just assume that all priests, at least all newly ordained priests, are homosexual now. That’s the only way we can protect our faith and our children.
I completely agree. Sad as it is, we have to assume the worst now. It’s so widespread and includes seminary staff and bishops. No way can we assume the clergy are normal men with normal sexual appetites, dedicating their lives to God.
I pray for them, but I don’t let myself be naïve any more.
In response to Catholic Man of the Year, I highly recommend Editor’s recent post/video on the “Lawless Church.” That video applies perfectly here, since one of the primary characteristics of the lawless Church is to publish disciplinary documents and then fail to enforce them. Case in point: Fr. James Martin, SJ.
The only way a Congregation will act on this seminarian is if a Prefect or some other higher-up is personally threatened with being “outed.” They will then throw this seminarian under the bus to protect themselves.
What the English College in Rome needs is another George Neumayr to dog them and expose them, as he has dogged Cardinal Wuerl and other corrupt clergy.
There can be no question that the priest in the seminary who received that email, must be gay themselves. I’m sorry, but I cannot believe otherwise.
What if the email had been sent to them to say that a particular seminarian was “homophobic” or “racist”? Do you think they would have left him stay there? I don’t think so.
I hope anyone reading those emails who is thinking of being a priest gives the English college a body swerve.
Anyone who doubts the veracity of the goings-on at the English College, Rome, should just trawl through some of the backnumbers of that institution’s magazine ‘The Venerabile’. Over the last three decades or so one can see how the present hierarchy of England and Wales has been taken over by a boys’ club of effete, self-regarding and very precious individuals.
Oliver G. Stoops,
Can you post a link to that mag?
I think this is it: https://www.vecrome.org/the-venerabile.html
No, back issues are kept at the link below, but they only seem to go up to 2016:- https://www.vecrome.org/back-issues.html
Well well, here we go again protecting the identity of a seriously suspect priest. Why? If this priest were a bigot or a racist it would be ok to out him, so why not a possible sodomite? if I find out his identity I’ll do just that, believe me. We should be protecting our boys from these predators not keeping mum out of false charity!
The man in question is a seminarian, not a priest. I’d also say it’s uncharitable to call him a “predator”. We have no evidence of that, as far as I’m aware.
Again, I think the editor’s request should be respected.
I said a “possible sodomite” so it follows that he is a “possible” predator.
As Petrus points out, we are not talking about a priest but about a seminarian, and the reason I am withholding his name is because I have no evidence that he is in any homosexual partnership – that is, I have no evidence that he is actively homosexual. The evidence that I have been given is that he “supports the so-called ‘gay’ culture” (see my letter to him above) which in itself is a barrier to ordination – which is why we are having this discussion.
I would have hoped that, by now, you know me well enough to know that I do not indulge in false charity. I do, however, have to consider three things here…
(1) the possibility (perhaps naive) that the seminarian will see that I have acted on my warning of publicity, and so may drop out of seminary of his own accord before any further publicity develops…
(2) the possibility (again, perhaps naive, certainly based on past experience) that his superiors may shy away from further possible scrutiny and remove him from seminary
(3) the possibility that he may, in fact, be truly repentant of his support for the “gay culture”.
Be assured, having named quite a few actively homosexual priests – every one of whom has now abandoned the priestly ministry, note – I do not hesitate, when necessary, to name names. I have no interest in doing so, though, for the sake of it.
I hope this clarifies my position – if only I could claim to be guilty of charity at any level, true OR false!
I couldn’t agree more. If the seminarian is repentant and drops out of seminary, realising he’s unsuitable , then he deserves a fresh start.
I have to say I think the editor’s decision not to name the seminarian in question, and her request not to speculate as to his identity, must be respected.
I also disagree that we should assume all priests these days are homosexual. I think that’s most unjust.
Thank you – I have to say I agree about making assumptions about all priests but, allow me to add, were I still frequenting a local parish, I would be checking that my priest is 100% believing across the theological and moral board, so to speak.
It was with some horror that I recently discovered from a very reliable source indeed, that a former PP who was no stranger to my home, is a member of the “gay” scene. So, I would be asking some very straight (excuse pun!) questions were I in a diocesan parish these days. And so, I’m sure, would your good self!
I couldn’t agree more.
I wonder if homosexuality among our priests is a relatively recent phenomenon or if it has always been there but better disguised? To some extent the priesthood might have been a ‘safe haven’ for devout and chaste homosexuals but it is hard to believe that what we are now learning about the culture and lifestyle in seminaries has always been the case. Abuse is certainly not new and I know three men whose lives were wrecked by abuse in junior seminaries in the 60’s , but I have an uncle who is a priest and I do not imagine for one moment that he would ever have tolerated or kept quiet if there had been openly gay behaviour in his seminary in the 1950’s.
While the priests ordained prior to Vatican II were not all saints, and would have counted bad apples among their number, and no doubt some of homosexual inclination, what is happening today is unquestionably unique – and largely dates from the “swinging sixties”. Someone forgot to tell the clergy that the new permissive “free sex” (lack of) rules did not apply to them!
I’m sorry I said that, I was wrong to say that. I know it would be wrong to assume the worst about every priest, so after thinking about it, I think I really meant what editor said, i.e. that I will now always check that any new priest is fully believing and accepts morals about abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality.
I agree with your decision to withold the name of the offender at this point in time.
However, if they ignore you (and others) and allow him to proceed to ordination, I think there is a moral responsibility to alert the faithful to the identity of this man. Parents and grandparents have the right to know who they are allowing to influence their children/grandchildren and what particular risks that a specific adult poses.
I think of my own sons growing up and if I had known that our priest was a homosexual (even a chaste one) I would have moved to a different parish. I would not want my children to get even the hint of a suggestion that this disorder was in any way normal, acceptable or worse – approved by God.
As I said to one priest: “You may be a spiritual father in theory, but when it comes to my children I am next to God Almighty in authority when it comes to judging what is acceptable or permissible for them to see, hear or be exposed to. And that authority extends to doctrine, spirituality and morality.”
I also agree with the Editor’s decision to withhold the man’s name at this time. One or two commentors have seemed to instantly assume that this man is currently a raving sodomite, but the simple fact is, there isn’t any proof of this, according to what has been written – in fact, quite the opposite, as he claims to unequivocally accept Church teaching on this issue now. He might well be a sincere but misguided soul who has had a genuine conversion away from that lifestyle, but has mistaken that conversion for a vocation to the priesthood. We just don’t know, so out of Christian charity we must not immediately assume the worst about someone until we have hard evidence. Having said that, I would still say that even if he was chaste and completely converted away from that lifestyle, but still had underlying same-sex attraction tendencies, then he should not proceed to ordination, as the 1961 and 2005 Vatican documents state. This is the Instruction of the Church, not just my opinion. I think the Editor has shown prudence and I’m sure she will see how this unfolds before making any further decisions.
Likewise the Rector. His failure to answer Editor’s correspondence is very disappointing, but again, in Christian charity, we cannot immediately assume that he or any of his colleagues are homosexuals, without hard evidence. In fact, I would have been very surprised if the Rector had spilled the beans about everything that he intended to do regarding this man to a complete stranger. It might well be that the issue will be dealt with discreetly and the person concerned may quietly leave the seminary. Let us watch and see if there are any further updates on this or other blogs, and pray.
Your exhortation to “moral responsibility… even if chaste” has been noted. Thank you.
I am with you on this. If this guy goes through to ordination, then the gloves must be off and he must be named, even if he is “only” on Facebook ‘liking’ ‘gay’ clubs and stating that he was on ‘Pride’ committees and also, on Twitter, supporting a pro-gay ‘marriage’ article in the Telegraph… Who does that, if he’s not gay himself? Even if I’m wrong about that, I agree with you that people need to be warned so that they can move to a different parish so at that point, I would urge editor to name him. You said it all when you wrote that ” Parents and grandparents have the right to know who they are allowing to influence their children/grandchildren and what particular risks that a specific adult poses.”
I agree with that completely, and I fail to see how anyone could possibly disagree, which is why I am surprised at the lack of response and respect shown by the seminary rector and other staff who have not answered the emails. I’ve read them again and can’t see anything to object to. They obviously know they’re in the wrong and have decided not to defend the indefensible.
I agree with that, as well. If he’s ordained, his gay history should be in the public domain, no question.
Spot on, Deacon Augustine.
BTW Editor, I meant to ask, did you send the link to this thread to the seminarian or the rector? The seminarian could always contribute to the comments under an alias if he wished.
Catholic Man of the Year,
I thought about it but decided not to send the link to him or any of the seminary staff. Why, I thought, should I? They’ve ignored every email I’ve sent, apart from the first, so I’m not inclined to provide them with any information.
Having said that, I dare say someone will alert them. Who cares?
In fact, already, one American publication has shown an interest in further publicising this, so if they don’t see it here, they’ll read about it there, in due course. Our US cousins are tied up with their midterm elections right now, but they may find it newsworthy when that excitement is out of the way, or so I am led to believe…
That’s good news about the American publication. The more publicity this scandal gets the better and the Americans have learnt the hard way that using the seminaries to participate in homosexual activity is not a guarantee of getting away with it.
Well, well, well….
As some of you may remember, we have had a number of trolls on here from time to time and I’ve often highlighted the fact that they appear on threads about homosexuality. They are normally clever enough to keep their comments ambiguous, pretend charity sort of thing, and ignore questions of a more personal nature to allow us to contextualise their comments and work out what, precisely, they are saying. I say “they” but there was certainly one who appeared under different usernames – same person, same nonsense, different usernames. In due course, I blacklist these nuts. And that’s the last I hear of them. I enjoy the peace of not having to read their baloney.
Imagine my surprise then, when doing my customary checks in admin to make sure no new blogger is languishing in the moderation queue, to note that there were 8 comments in the TRASH folder – appropriately, as it turned out. I toyed with the idea of renaming the folder The Return of the Troll because the 8 comments were all viciously attacking, firstly my unworthy self (7 of the 8) and number 8 was attacking Josephine – not by name, just responding to one of her comments.
The majority of the comments read:
U ARE A DISGRACE TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH (Josephine and myself) with the following one directed at moi, and any other blogger who agrees with moi….
U are a VILE and WICKED woman. Evil personified. U WILL be judged by a greater authority than on earth. Good and faitful servsnt are not the wordsU can expect to hear. EVIL and PEVERTED BIGOTas areall who appluad Ur wickedness.
Now, this, I humbly submit, confirms my suspicions, that this troll, certainly, is a very troubled soul and that is as a result of the fact that he is homosexual himself. And who knows, he may, at some point, have been removed from seminary as a result. There has to be a reason for his unbridled fury when the subject of homosexuality is under discussion.
Look at the frantic nature of his comments: all capitals in the “u are a disgrace” posts and the selected capitals, typos/misspellings in the “vile and wicked woman” post. He did not write these comments under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is for sure.
Whatever, I ask myself, happened to “who am I to judge?”
If only he would read some of Dr Gerard van den Aardweg books, they would help him to feel better.
Pray for this person, that he repents and is restored to grace in good time before his own Judgement
Judging by the frenetic nature, and all the typos, I think he probably wrote them under the influence of a bottle of Jack Daniels. Poor man.
Well, the interesting thing is that, thanks to your username, we now know the location of our troll because he assumes that you frequent Westminster Cathedral and he challenges you to approach him next time you are there (presumably you will recognise him when you see his rainbow T shirt, or, if it’s Sunday, his rainbow tie to match his rainbow suit! ) Heid-banger as they say in downtown Glasgow.
My money is on him working for the Archdiocese of Westminster, what thinkest thou? Maybe a priest? We all know that Cardinal Nichols is LGBT+++++ supportive, with bells on…
But, much as I’d love to, I don’t have a clue as to how to prepare for the judgment he keeps saying I’m facing, over and beyond the judgment we will all face. He doesn’t actually say WHY I am a vile woman etc. It’s enough to get a gal mixed up – I mean, am I vile because I’m a woman, or am I a woman because I’m vile, or what? I’m confused, or, should that be, mixed up…. ?
Did he say that? LOL!!! Yes, there appears to be that childish, spiteful petulant mindset there, which indicates some kind of self-pitying neurosis. In any event, your troll assumes wrong. I do not attend the sacraments at the Cathedral. One reason (out of many) is because the place seems to attract people like him.
Game, set and match!
Hopefully your troll will read this: https://4christum.blogspot.com/2018/05/dr-aardweg-homo-tyranny-is-upon-us-in.html
Catholic Man of the Year,
One can but hope and pray. One would surely find that article very helpful if one were of the “alphabet” inclination…
One has moved into propaaaa speech mode, if one notices, because one has discovered that one’s troll is situated in the Archdiocese of Westminster, and Westminster is in and around London which is posh. Well, one knows that everywhere south of Carlisle is posh, so one doesn’t take risks when discussing important mattaaaas with our English cousins but , well… Westminster? One really must be careful. Who knows, one day one might belong to an independent Scotland and one would have to forge new relationships with one’s nearest neighbours, and, of course, one’s trolls.
One will return lataaaaa….
Posh? I’ve heard there’s some very unsavoury types in Ambrosden Avenue (Westminster in-joke- your troll will understand!)
I’m completely with those bloggers who think this man ought to be named if he goes forward to ordination. It would be unconscionable not to name him in that circumstance, for the reason given by the deacon.
A friend of mine read this article yesterday https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4205-pope-orders-us-bishops-to-be-as-negligent-as-the-vatican-is at the Remnant and posted a comment linking to this thread, as it is all part and parcel of the same problem. For some reason it didn’t get through the Remnant moderation. Shame. We all need to pull together.
Thank you for that information.
It has mystified us for a very long time that The Remnant do not support us or anything we do. Not sure of the reason, but I have a feeling (and I speak as a decidedly NON-feminist) that it’s because the editor (my unworthy self) is literally, not one of the boys! A friend suggested I ought to go “trans”, so I’m chewing that over… 😀
The fact that we put plenty of links to them, as you’ve just done yourself, makes it even more puzzling that they won’t publicise us at all.
I do agree with your concluding sentiment, that we do all need to pull together. And, encouragingly, when I emailed both Anthony Murphy, the Irishman who edits the newspaper Catholic Voice/Lumen Fidei, and John Henry Weston at Lifesitenews, they both willingly granted permission for us to publish any of their material here; Lifesitenews has credited Catholic Truth as a source in the past and, I’m told, will do so again when appropriate.
So, what to make of The Remnant? Who knows. Even during the scandal surrounding Cardinal O’Brien, they didn’t come to us or quote anything from us and we are the only remotely “traditional” source in Scotland, so it really is noteworthy that they appear to have no time for us.
However, they do very good work over there in the USA, so we will continue to publish material from their site whenever possible.
Must go now – it’s getting cold up here on the high moral ground 😀
I note you say you will continue to publish material from the Remnant site although they ignore this one – why would you do that? There are plenty of other sites you could use. I, personally, would give the Remnant a wide body-swerve. If Scotland and the UK is so unimportant to them that they wouldn’t even publish a comment on their blog linking to us here, and/or they don’t like women editors, there’s something wrong with them. I won’t be visiting that site – I hardly do so anyway, but now I’ll be taking my own advice and giving them a wide body-swerve!
Even neo-conservative outfits like EWTN are speaking out now and saying that homosexuality in the priesthood is the problem. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/priest-on-ewtn-church-wont-link-sex-abuse-crisis-to-homosexuality-over-fear?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=dea303f120-Catholic_11_13_2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-dea303f120-403867721
The Pope has again said men with homosexual tendencies can’t be priests
Editor: thank you for this update, Lily. Just caught it as I came in to close the blog for Advent. Many thanks.
Comments are closed.